The picture above shows several foreign aid projects in Sudan. Beginning top left and going clockwise:Road project now generating dust that is proving harmful to the nearby plants and cuts through a major migratory route. A water pump now showing evidence of lowering the water table in an already dry region. A dyke project that is now causing the desertification of the land behind it affecting grazing of livestock and wildlife. A food aid project that is generating plastic waste in a region with no mechanism for waste disposal.[Sudan]
International Aid: Digging Holes in the Sand
Most of us would consider foreign aid to be an altogether good thing. It allows wealthy nations to feed the poor and allows for the creation of infrastructure in nations that do not have the capital or expertise to maintain it themselves. However, over the years, several problems have become evident in the many types of foreign aid. While people are being fed, and infrastructure constructed, along with a plethora of other benefits, these seem to be coming at a cost to the nations being served, and their people.
Food aid accounts for the majority of foreign aid. [Feeney] It is, relatively speaking of course, probably the easiest form of aid to provide. All that is required is that food be shipped to those in need and distributed in a fair and useful manner. As with all aid this requires money and labor, but little else. Some political capacity and social awareness is always helpful, but so long as food is getting to the hungry, little else matters, right? We are finding out that these might be the case. Food aid is having an increasingly unquestionable social effect. As is becoming increasingly aware, food aid creates dependency in those places where it supports a large percentage of the population. Additionally, it is displacing local farmers in the places where food aid is readily available which is decreasing the agricultural knowledge of those areas. [Feeney] Less obvious is the potential for food disaster. What happens when those providing the aid experience a famine? Now two or more groups are starving instead of one. As mentioned, distribution accounts for most of the difficulty of food aid. It has been internationally recognized the governments that receive aid from foreign nations can be corrupt, making the aid not in the least bit beneficial to the people it is meant to feed. See: NYTimes: Food Aid Bypasses Somalia's Needy...
On the other hand, the difficulty of distribution in many places has pushed for infrastructure creation in many 3rd world countries. Roads for example are becoming increasingly popular projects led by foreign agencies and individuals. With new roads, delivering food aid is easier , quicker, and more efficient, and the people there can use the roads to their own benefit as well. See: UN: Building an Efficient Road Network in Africa
However, such construction has itself become a concern. While food aid is meant to sustain populations that have found themselves in need, the infrastructure being created on their behalf is also threatening sustainability in those regions. For example, when roads are built in these nations, they are often done so as cheaply as possible, which makes sense and is not itself of concern. However, the roads created are dirt roads, which admittedly might be seen as better for the environment. However, they have their problems. Firstly, the dust that comes off of the roads has a detrimental impact on the surrounding wildlife, especially plants. If people are close enough to the roads, it can cause respiratory problems for them as well. Additionally, the roads are often created in straight lines, for efficiency sake. The problem is that they often cross migratory routes and can cause severe problems for animals of the region. Another unforeseen consequence of the new ease of transportation is that these roads often open up new areas to deforestation, poaching (or even just over-hunting), and the move-in of corporations for the exploitation of the land and/or its people. [Grift]
Another specific example of infrastructure that has gone wrong is the creation of dykes in Sudan. While they were created to prevent flooding, they now appear to be drying out the land behind them, reducing grazing area. This affects the domestic animals, an important source of food, and the wildlife of the region. [Sudan] This is just another one of many particular examples of aid gone wrong, and it should be taken as a lesson in the future, not to mention for current projects.
One final problem with foreign aid with regards to sustainability can be summarized by saying that foreign aid in the form of food, infrastructure, political aid, etc. detract from other forms that may be more important in the end, mainly environmental aid. If we continue to help people at the cost of their environment and the global environment, then eventually their environment will become unlivable, and all previous aid will have been for naught. As evidence of the difference in levels of aid, look at the numbers: In 2006 in Sudan, approximately 78 million US dollars were spent on conventional (non-environmental) aid. The total amount of money spent in the nation, both by the nation AND in the form of aid, was less than five million US dollars. [Sudan]
All of this ties into a common theme that fits more elegantly into the matrix of sustainability problems. What ties this all together is the idea of "feel good" ethics. This is the notion that we do what makes us feel good, as opposed to what might actually be best. The point is that while certain practices may be harmful, like certain kinds of food aid, we turn a blind eye or do not even look for such problems because the act of giving the aid makes us feel better about ourselves. We think we are helping even if we are not, and if the people want it, then the policy makers will want it. As such, it is our responsibility to do something about it.
But the question remains: What can we do about it? While I don't think anybody would suggest completely cutting foreign aid from government and charity budgets, it should be possible to spend money in a more sustainable and effective manner. If enough focus is placed on sustainability and people are educated in sustainability topics, then there should be a natural shift towards more sustainable practices. For example, perhaps plans could be implemented to alleviate waste generated by food aid. Perhaps food aid agencies could work alongside local farmers. Maybe roads could be constructed from crushed stone so as to give off less dust. The list goes on. It is up to those of us who already have sustainability in mind to make sure our policy makers and the remaining public do as well. We need to begin focusing on what will really work long term and not what gratifies us in the short term.
In conclusion, I propose an amendment to an old adage: Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime. Teach a man to fish sustainably, feed him, his children, and his children’s children for their lifetimes.
When we try to develop solutions to global problems we must be intelligent and forward thinking. We cannot look at problems as they are. We must look at them as they will be, and do our best to understand how each and every effort we make will ripple through the entire globe. Think of foreign aid, as it is currently structured, like digging a hole in the sand to try to escape the sun. It works alright at first, but the digging makes you hot so you have to keep digging deeper to stay cool… Eventually the sand caves in.
Grift, Edgar A. et. al. “Assessing the Impact of Roads on Animal Population Viability.” University of California. 24 Aug. 2003. 22 March 2010. <http://escholarship.org/uc/item/4jq850cq>
The picture above shows several foreign aid projects in Sudan. Beginning top left and going clockwise:Road project now generating dust that is proving harmful to the nearby plants and cuts through a major migratory route. A water pump now showing evidence of lowering the water table in an already dry region. A dyke project that is now causing the desertification of the land behind it affecting grazing of livestock and wildlife. A food aid project that is generating plastic waste in a region with no mechanism for waste disposal.[Sudan]
International Aid: Digging Holes in the Sand
Most of us would consider foreign aid to be an altogether good thing. It allows wealthy nations to feed the poor and allows for the creation of infrastructure in nations that do not have the capital or expertise to maintain it themselves. However, over the years, several problems have become evident in the many types of foreign aid. While people are being fed, and infrastructure constructed, along with a plethora of other benefits, these seem to be coming at a cost to the nations being served, and their people.
Food aid accounts for the majority of foreign aid. [Feeney] It is, relatively speaking of course, probably the easiest form of aid to provide. All that is required is that food be shipped to those in need and distributed in a fair and useful manner. As with all aid this requires money and labor, but little else. Some political capacity and social awareness is always helpful, but so long as food is getting to the hungry, little else matters, right? We are finding out that these might be the case. Food aid is having an increasingly unquestionable social effect. As is becoming increasingly aware, food aid creates dependency in those places where it supports a large percentage of the population. Additionally, it is displacing local farmers in the places where food aid is readily available which is decreasing the agricultural knowledge of those areas. [Feeney] Less obvious is the potential for food disaster. What happens when those providing the aid experience a famine? Now two or more groups are starving instead of one. As mentioned, distribution accounts for most of the difficulty of food aid. It has been internationally recognized the governments that receive aid from foreign nations can be corrupt, making the aid not in the least bit beneficial to the people it is meant to feed. See: NYTimes: Food Aid Bypasses Somalia's Needy...
On the other hand, the difficulty of distribution in many places has pushed for infrastructure creation in many 3rd world countries. Roads for example are becoming increasingly popular projects led by foreign agencies and individuals. With new roads, delivering food aid is easier , quicker, and more efficient, and the people there can use the roads to their own benefit as well. See: UN: Building an Efficient Road Network in Africa
However, such construction has itself become a concern. While food aid is meant to sustain populations that have found themselves in need, the infrastructure being created on their behalf is also threatening sustainability in those regions. For example, when roads are built in these nations, they are often done so as cheaply as possible, which makes sense and is not itself of concern. However, the roads created are dirt roads, which admittedly might be seen as better for the environment. However, they have their problems. Firstly, the dust that comes off of the roads has a detrimental impact on the surrounding wildlife, especially plants. If people are close enough to the roads, it can cause respiratory problems for them as well. Additionally, the roads are often created in straight lines, for efficiency sake. The problem is that they often cross migratory routes and can cause severe problems for animals of the region. Another unforeseen consequence of the new ease of transportation is that these roads often open up new areas to deforestation, poaching (or even just over-hunting), and the move-in of corporations for the exploitation of the land and/or its people. [Grift]
Another specific example of infrastructure that has gone wrong is the creation of dykes in Sudan. While they were created to prevent flooding, they now appear to be drying out the land behind them, reducing grazing area. This affects the domestic animals, an important source of food, and the wildlife of the region. [Sudan] This is just another one of many particular examples of aid gone wrong, and it should be taken as a lesson in the future, not to mention for current projects.
One final problem with foreign aid with regards to sustainability can be summarized by saying that foreign aid in the form of food, infrastructure, political aid, etc. detract from other forms that may be more important in the end, mainly environmental aid. If we continue to help people at the cost of their environment and the global environment, then eventually their environment will become unlivable, and all previous aid will have been for naught. As evidence of the difference in levels of aid, look at the numbers: In 2006 in Sudan, approximately 78 million US dollars were spent on conventional (non-environmental) aid. The total amount of money spent in the nation, both by the nation AND in the form of aid, was less than five million US dollars. [Sudan]
All of this ties into a common theme that fits more elegantly into the matrix of sustainability problems. What ties this all together is the idea of "feel good" ethics. This is the notion that we do what makes us feel good, as opposed to what might actually be best. The point is that while certain practices may be harmful, like certain kinds of food aid, we turn a blind eye or do not even look for such problems because the act of giving the aid makes us feel better about ourselves. We think we are helping even if we are not, and if the people want it, then the policy makers will want it. As such, it is our responsibility to do something about it.
But the question remains: What can we do about it? While I don't think anybody would suggest completely cutting foreign aid from government and charity budgets, it should be possible to spend money in a more sustainable and effective manner. If enough focus is placed on sustainability and people are educated in sustainability topics, then there should be a natural shift towards more sustainable practices. For example, perhaps plans could be implemented to alleviate waste generated by food aid. Perhaps food aid agencies could work alongside local farmers. Maybe roads could be constructed from crushed stone so as to give off less dust. The list goes on. It is up to those of us who already have sustainability in mind to make sure our policy makers and the remaining public do as well. We need to begin focusing on what will really work long term and not what gratifies us in the short term.
In conclusion, I propose an amendment to an old adage: Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime. Teach a man to fish sustainably, feed him, his children, and his children’s children for their lifetimes.
When we try to develop solutions to global problems we must be intelligent and forward thinking. We cannot look at problems as they are. We must look at them as they will be, and do our best to understand how each and every effort we make will ripple through the entire globe. Think of foreign aid, as it is currently structured, like digging a hole in the sand to try to escape the sun. It works alright at first, but the digging makes you hot so you have to keep digging deeper to stay cool… Eventually the sand caves in.
References:
Feeney, Simon. “Impact of Foreign Aid on Rural Sector in Menalesia.” RMIT University. Jan. 2005. 22 March 2010. <http://www.ausaid.gov.au/publications/pdf/aid_to_menalesia.pdf>
Grift, Edgar A. et. al. “Assessing the Impact of Roads on Animal Population Viability.” University of California. 24 Aug. 2003. 22 March 2010. <http://escholarship.org/uc/item/4jq850cq>
“Sudan, Post Conflict Environmental Assessment.” United Nations Environmental Programme. 22 March 2010. <http://postconflict.unep.ch/publications/sudan/14_aid.pdf>